Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Church Militant:
The previous thread was closed and had drifted off topic.
- Status
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
yankee drifter:
This brought the thread off topic.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
What about the rest of what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about what Christians practice in 100 AD:
**
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.**
Do you observe the Eucharist, the flesh of Christ? Do you honor the Bishop?
yankee_drifter:
yankee_drifter:
yankee_drifter:
Please tell me where in the Bible it says the Bible is the only authority? What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? Who decides?
yankee_drifter:
**
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.**
Do you observe the Eucharist, the flesh of Christ? Do you honor the Bishop?
sigh Here we go again. It was not Rome who legitimized Christianity, rather it was Constantine.
Please site your source. Roman Catholic is actually CHRISTIAN CATHOLIC, ROMAN RITE (vs Maronite Rite, Byzantine Rite, etc.).
That is quite an accusation to say Catholics are not Christian and they don’t adhere to God’s word. Over and over Catholics here have told you we do study the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Please tell me where in the Bible it says the Bible is the only authority? What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? Who decides?
That is a good question you should ask yourself.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
R
Roy5
Guest
I feel obliged to remind both Catholics and evangelicals that there are millions of Protestants (and Catholics, too, by the way) who consider ourselves devout Christians but accept neither everything in the Bible nor every doctrine taught by our church or any other.
Code:
We are often dismissed as 'modernists' or 'liberals' or even as 'heretics'. We try to be faithful followers of Christ, perhaps focus less attention on doctrine and liturgy, more on Christ and his Sermon on the Mount, and have trouble taking literally many things in the Bible. For example, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, the Tower of Babel - the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Now there probably was a major flood in the Middle East (the myth of Gilgamesh seems to help verify this), but the notion that Noah built an ark to hold every animal, then herded two of every kind into it where they remained for 150 days until the waters receded - sorry, not believable. Ark big enough? Food for them all? And many more problems. Perhaps my biggest problem is that I can't believe that God would deliberately drown all but eight inhabitants, that he would kill all sorts of innocent children, even babies in the womb, along with 'sinners'. Etc.
There are many other stories in scripture that trouble me. Jonah three days in the belly of a big fish, for example. Or, Jehovah ordering Joshua to slaughter everyone in Jericho, Ai, and elsewhere, and Saul being commanded by God to kill every last Amalekite. No, try as I may, I can't make such stories reflect the God of love who gave us the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.
So, I respect my fundamentalist brothers and sisters (some literally that), but I must reject various parts of scripture as myth, folklore, fable, or legend.
Now, as for Catholicism, among my problems are doctrines that appear to be non- Biblical (e. g., Immaculate Conception, infallibility of the Pope) and so many of the stories associated with apparitions of Mary as well as saint stories. Take Padre Pio, for example. Now, really, was he actually able to levitate and bilocate and much, much more? If you can believe it, fine. I try my best to respect all faiths. But when I hear various saint stories presented by Mr. and Mrs. Lord on EWTN I have to shake my head. Sorry. Am I too influenced by modern science, common sense, or what? Some, of course, will accuse me of lack of humility, refusal to bend to divine truth, putting my opinion above divine relevation, etc.
But, God bless bless the whole world - no exceptions.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I’m trying to keep this discussion on topic. I have no wish to judge you or anyone who disagrees with Catholic Doctrine. The OP asks,
"Church Militant:
T
twinkletwinkle
Guest
According to merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian a Christian is : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.I’m trying to keep this discussion on topic. I have no wish to judge you or anyone who disagrees with Catholic Doctrine. The OP asks,
The teachings of Jesus Christ are found in the Bible.
Jesus taught the commands of God.
“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63 Jesus said.
St. Peter said that “your new birth” comes from “Word of God”. 1 Peter 1:23
Jesus used these holy writings exclusively when he was on earth. Christians follow his example because Christ is a model for all Christians. 1 Peter 2:21.
Even in Jesus day people didn’t use God’s Word as the complete authority for worship and Jesus condemned them for it.
Notice what Jesus says about traditions outside of the scriptures:
Matthew 15:3 “He answered, 'And why do you break away from the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”
Mark 7:7,8 “Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments.
You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.’”
Mark 7:13-“In this way you make God’s word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.’”
Notice what Saint Paul said about traditions not in the scriptures:
Colossians 2:8 “Make sure that no one captivates you with the empty lure of a ‘philosophy’ of the kind that human beings hand on, based on the principles of this world and not on Christ.”
Titus 1:14
Jesus said: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”
The Bible is God’s Message to mankind on how to worship him the right way. Otherwise, how can you know the right way to do God’s will unless He tells us? Thus, God put his message in a book that we call the Bible.
Is the Bible enough? Is God able to put everything in one Book?
St. Pauls said “But even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preaches to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let God’s curse be on him. I repeat again what we declared before: anyone who preaches to you a gospel other than the one you were first given is to be under God’s curse.” Galatians 1:8,9
(Notice that he repeated if for emphasis. This was important.)
St. Paul said that “All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work.”. 2 Timothy 3:16,17
Proverbs 30:5,6 " Every word of God is unalloyed, a shield to those who take refuge in him. To his words make no addition, lest he reprove you and account you a liar. "
Question:
Was the church founded on the Bible or was the Bible founded on the church?
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I just have to say, that I would die for my faith, because I believe it, I believe that it is real, and I accept what has been passed on by our Lord. Just like I heard discussed last night on EWTN, that most people would not accept mathmatics from someone who says 2+2 does not equal 4, and who is going to be willing to live and die for a “faith” that is deluted and watered down? I guess I am an all or nothing kind of Christian, and I would not give my life over and submit to a faith that does not have absolutes and authoritative doctrines with certainty and without being ashamed of it.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Re: Paul and the Gospel
That would be the yet-unwritten, word of mouth, apostolic teaching Gospel he’s talking about. That part of the Bible didn’t exist yet.
Re: Paul and scripture
That would be the OT he’s talking about, not the Gospels that hadn’t been written yet and not his own letters or the other NT books.
So… if you interpret Paul’s quote about “Gospel” as including the written Gospels, or about “scripture” as including the NT, you are interpreting his words by means of unwritten tradition, not by the rule of Sola Scriptura.
There’s nothing wrong with that; but you should recognize that’s what you’re doing.
Heck, how do you read the Bible at all, if the traditional knowledge of how to read written English hasn’t been handed on to you by your teachers or parents or other readers, instructing you formally or through reading to you?
That would be the yet-unwritten, word of mouth, apostolic teaching Gospel he’s talking about. That part of the Bible didn’t exist yet.
Re: Paul and scripture
That would be the OT he’s talking about, not the Gospels that hadn’t been written yet and not his own letters or the other NT books.
So… if you interpret Paul’s quote about “Gospel” as including the written Gospels, or about “scripture” as including the NT, you are interpreting his words by means of unwritten tradition, not by the rule of Sola Scriptura.
There’s nothing wrong with that; but you should recognize that’s what you’re doing.
Heck, how do you read the Bible at all, if the traditional knowledge of how to read written English hasn’t been handed on to you by your teachers or parents or other readers, instructing you formally or through reading to you?
C
ChadS
Guest
Any Catholic could fully quote and approve every Bible verse you wrote here. That proves nothing, we believe in the Bible just as much as you do. The problem is your interpretation and spin you give these verses does not match up with history nor how the Church has understood these scriptures for the past 2000 years. Also, the same verses you have quoted I’ve seen on CAF about thousand times since I started posting here and you’ll probably get the same answers I’ve seen from other Catholic posters on the other 200 other threads.
BTW The Bible was founded by the Church and for the Church, no matter what you say or claim it was not the other way around.
ChadS
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Not sure what your point is various Scripture verses. How do you answer the OP,
Where in the Bible does it say ONLY in the Bible are found ALL the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I think a bettter way to word this is: “Which came first, the Bible or the Church?”
C
ChadS
Guest
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
I don’t know how this topic could go very far without traveling down the path of at least one Catholic tradition. What are we supposed to say? What I would like to say is, if a doctrine cannot be found in the written word the burden of proof lies with those who proclaim it.
The four Gospels, Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and the Acts of the Apostles (not codified) were all read and accepted in the church from the time they were written as far as we know. So why wouldn’t they be the primary standard by which we judge doctrine? If the Bible doesn’t say… you need to show proof that a doctrine not found there came from the apostles. Do you not?
The four Gospels, Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and the Acts of the Apostles (not codified) were all read and accepted in the church from the time they were written as far as we know. So why wouldn’t they be the primary standard by which we judge doctrine? If the Bible doesn’t say… you need to show proof that a doctrine not found there came from the apostles. Do you not?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, but the gospels were not written down all nice and neatly in a leather-bound book between AD 33 and AD 380. So how did the people living then–approximately 10 generations worth of people–know the difference between the ORAL teachings they heard. . .which may have been some bits of Luke, some of Mark, some of Paul’s letter to the Romans, some of the Didache, some of the Shepherd of Hermas, and some so-called ‘gospels’ which were forgeries? like the Gospel of Thomas? They weren’t able to say among themselves, "Well, Petronius, let’s turn to the New Testament, and read through the entire text of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, and compare it with the Malachi chapter 3 and Isaiah chapter 56. . "
10 generations of people to whom the word of God was ‘spoken’. . .and then another 1000 years more after that of people who mostly could not read themselves, and if they could, were unlikely to be able to OWN a Bible as it took at least 2 years for a copyist to be able to MAKE the only Bibles that were available --hand-made ones–and the materials and labor were obviously beyond the reach of the ‘average’ person.
And just how does a book 'interpret itself"? We know from St. Peter that private interpretation of Scripture is not right. . .so there must be some ‘authoritative interpretation’ that we can count on.
We know that the Holy Spirit does not speak against Himself. We also know that Christian A of denomination A teaches that Scripture says that, say, homosexuality is a disordered behavior. But Christian B of denomination B teaches that Scripture does not really say anything about homosexuality. Christian C of denomination C teaches that Scripture does not care for promiscuous’ homosexuality but is approving of ‘commited homosexual relationships’.
Each of them claims to speak from Scripture. But those claims are contradictory. They cannot all be true. Therefore, simply claiming ‘Scripture says’ does not ensure that Scripture says what one claims. There has to be an authority which would accurately tell us which of the above, if any, is teaching ‘correctly’ on Scripture and which is not.
10 generations of people to whom the word of God was ‘spoken’. . .and then another 1000 years more after that of people who mostly could not read themselves, and if they could, were unlikely to be able to OWN a Bible as it took at least 2 years for a copyist to be able to MAKE the only Bibles that were available --hand-made ones–and the materials and labor were obviously beyond the reach of the ‘average’ person.
And just how does a book 'interpret itself"? We know from St. Peter that private interpretation of Scripture is not right. . .so there must be some ‘authoritative interpretation’ that we can count on.
We know that the Holy Spirit does not speak against Himself. We also know that Christian A of denomination A teaches that Scripture says that, say, homosexuality is a disordered behavior. But Christian B of denomination B teaches that Scripture does not really say anything about homosexuality. Christian C of denomination C teaches that Scripture does not care for promiscuous’ homosexuality but is approving of ‘commited homosexual relationships’.
Each of them claims to speak from Scripture. But those claims are contradictory. They cannot all be true. Therefore, simply claiming ‘Scripture says’ does not ensure that Scripture says what one claims. There has to be an authority which would accurately tell us which of the above, if any, is teaching ‘correctly’ on Scripture and which is not.
N
nuntym
Guest
Hmm, ok.
The canon of the Bible, that is, which books to be included in the Bible, is it not doctrine?
Did it come from the apostles?
C
ChadS
Guest
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That is a very good point!
Some of those historical books, like the Didache are interesting reads. They tell us about the culture and the practices of the early Christian community, but they are not Divinely inspired. I believe Revelation and Maccabees were disputed as divinely inspired until Pope St. Damasius I told St. Jerome to include them in his Latin Vulgate translation, cir 345 AD.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I see you swam the Tiber in 2004. Welcome home!
- Status